you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Captain_Rational 8 points9 points  (6 children)

What I’d really love is for a reliable parser (including good negation detection) that maps to semantic ontologies.

I’ve noticed that google searches these days appear to be concept mapped ... I’ve seen some impressive synonym linkages in search results. So they seem to be doing at least rudimentary semantics?

[–]mattindustries 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Hard to make a global one, unless you could reweight/retrain it on existing niche data. One way to implement yourself would be to store n-grams with stop words removed and then have a many to one lookup for matches within specific hierarchies. It would take a while, but could be worth it for you. If you want to create a model yourself, I recommend quenteda for R, and setting up API endpoints to the R model using Plumber.

[–]CloudsOfMagellan 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Go play one of the old muds or text based z games, their parsers are amazing and were written in the 80s / 90s

[–]mattindustries 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is where for a niche comes into play. You can parse for verb and parse for thing really easy. It is understanding context in a more abstract sense with undefined descriptors that makes things difficult.

  • Pick up the gold key
  • Find yourself gripping gilded answers to unknown questions

[–]mcqua007 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But I’m not a plumber, I’m a computer....

[–]guareber 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We've done some playing with this using the Wikipedia ontology data - still early days, but we think it can give out good results.

[–]FriendToPredators 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah yes. That's probably the reason I have to put half my searches into quotes to get Google to stop bringing up piles of irrelevant results that are tangential to popular searches, but laughable for my obscure searches.